Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-09-28
THE SUPREME COURT
Endorses Ex-Governor Jaekson-A Vindi-
cation OF the Famous Order.

k-NeAN ~ ~ H-S a SNeNNNAN N
case exactly parallel 10 the the one which
agitated our State, 1t renders its decision
endorsing every point which Gov. Jackson
maintained.
The decision is crushingly emphatic. 1t
is the decision of the Supreme Court OF the
land, the final arbiter Of u laws, the
most learned body in the world. The
unanimous decision of a court whose mem
bers with one exception belong TO that Re-
publican party which bitterly opposed the
Governors actions.
And this decision, final, emphatic, which
cannot he reviewed, "PrOnounces that the
Governor was right and his opponents
all were wrong.
The case in which the Supreme Court
has Just rendered this decision. is the case
of Huntington vs.. WOrthen, brought up
from the State of Arkansas, and reported
in 100 L. S. Reports, page 81, and decided
on January "a, 1887.
Briefly we will now show that the West
Virginia aud Arkansas cases were parallel,
and that the Supreme Court arrived at the
same decision as Governor Jackson.
The pOinttadiudicated in this case which
was decided was this as taken from the
syllabus: THE statute OF Arkansas of
March 81, 1883, sec. 10, which directs the
board of railroad commissioners not to in
clude cmbankments, tunnels, cuts, ties,
t~restles or bridges OF railroads in the sched-
ule of the property of railroad companies,
prepared by them for the purpose Of assess
ment of taxes, is in conflict with the pro-
visions in the Constitution of the State OF
1874, relating TO the assessment and taxa
ton of property within the State; but, the
unconstitutional part Of the act being sep
arabic from the remainder, the latter con-
tinues valid"
This is the point decided, Let us now
look at the similarity of the constitutions
aud laws ofthe two States.
The constitution OF the State OF Arkan-
sas, which We copy from the case above
mentioned provides that ''All property
subject to taxation shall he taxed accord
ing to its value, to he asCertained II such
manner as the general assembly shall di-
rect, making the same equal and uniform
throughout the State and that mo one
pecies O~fprOperty, from which a tax may
collected, shall he taxed higher than
ther species of property of equal
value.
Ii then provides that the following prop
erty may be exempt from taxation; Pub
lie property, churches, cemeteries and
property used for school purposes and
charities.
BY looking at Sec |, art. 10, OF the Con-
stitution OF West Virginia, it will be seen
that our Constitution is identical in mean
inc with that of the State OF Arkansas,
and that it provides that the same property
NAV be exempted.
Thus, the Constitutions of the two States
are seen 10 be the same.
But the Legislature of Arkansas empt-
ed property from taxation not exempted
under the Constitution. They exempted
the establishments, tunnels, cuts, ties, tres
ties or bridges OF railways from taxation.
In the same manner the Legislature OF
Vest Virginia exempted property from
taxation not exempted under the Consti-
ton. IThey exempted the products of agi-
culture, live stock, mines, wells and
manufactures.
The laws of Arkansas provide that the
Governor, Secretary Of State and Auditor,
composing the Board of Railroad Commits
%sioners, shall enforce the railroad laws OF
that State. This Board passed a reSniu-
ton declaring that all property Of railroad
companies i'm the State should be assessed
at its true value, without regard to the
restrictions and limitations mentioned, by
which the value OF the embankmentS, tun-
nels, cuts, ties, ~trestles and bridges, is
excluded from the schedule OF their prop
erty, that after full examination and con-
s~ultatiOn, il had determined that such linn
itatiOns and restrictions were "uncOnstitu'
tional and that it was not bound thereby
and it ordered the articles exempted by the
Legislature TO be taxed.
The laws of West Virginia provide that
the Governor shall enforce the laws OF
that State, and thus Governor Jackson or
dered that the articles not exempted by
the Constitution hut exempted by the
Legislature should he taxed.
Both the Governor OF West Virginia
and the Governor of Arkansas, acting as a
board, decided what laws were c0nstitu-
tiOnal and what were to be enforced. Had
they the power and was it their duty so to
decide?
The action of the Board of Commission
ers of Arkansas was taken before the SUI
preme Court OF that State and it decided
that they had the power.
The question was appealed to the court
oflast resort, the Supreme Court OF the
United States, and that court decided,
LAS thus seen, no part of the properties OF
railroad companies in the State Is exempt
from taxation, and any law which eXempts
it is in express terms declared to he void.
But avs which indirectly produce such
exemptions must be equally imperative.
That cannot be accomplished indirectly,
which the organic law declares shall not
be done directly. When, therefore, the
Board Of Commissioners treated rs invalid
the direction OF the statute, il Obeyed the
Constitution rather than the Legislature.
An unconstitutional act is not Il law, it
binds no one and protects no one. Here
the conflict between the Constitution and
the statute was obvious. The statute de
Clared that IN making its statement OF the
value of Its property, the railroad com
panY should omit certain items; that
clause being held invalid, the est remain
ed unaffected, and could be fully carried
out. An exemption, which was invalid,
was alone taken from it
NUS NAN supreme NbhAN NNNtA N"N
action OF the governor Of Arkansas, and
the cases being parallel, the action OF Gov
ernOr jackson.
Not only does this decision of the
Supreme Court sustain the action Of Gov
Jackson on the reassesSment question, but
il also suStains that Board of Public Works
of which Governor Jackson was president,
when they ordered railroad companies for
the first time to pay taxes on the bridges at
BsnwOOd and Parkersburg.
That Gov. Jackson was right, that he
acted for the hest interests OF the State and
that he discharged the duties OF his office
in the manner of his oath and the ConStitu-
ton required of him, we have always held,
and it does not surprise us to ind u
opinion 80 emphatically upheld by the
Supreme Court of the United States.